Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Answers few on gas plant plan

Answers few on gas plant plan

Jan 28, 2008 - 04:05:30 CST

By MARY HODELL
South Heart

(A week ago today, the Tribune published a guest column written by Rich Voss, vice president of Great Northern Power Development, one of the partners involved in planning a coal mine and gasification plant at South Heart, west of Dickinson. This response was written by Mary Hodell of South Heart, a member of the Badlands Area Resource Council, an affiliate of the Dakota Resource Council. - Editor)

South Heart area residents are facing a coal mine and gasification plant moving into our backyards and are struggling to get solid information. Community members have heard promises, but there are no actions to back them up. The people in the South Heart community deserve better.

Perhaps one of the most misleading statements made yet is the "numerous meetings" Great Northern Power Development has held. On Wednesday night, a public meeting was held in South Heart, a meeting that, had it not been recommended by the Stark County Commission, would not have been held. GNPD spokesman Neal Messer opened the meeting with the line, "This is the first of many public meetings." Project Development V.P. Rich Voss went on to say, "Our plans have changed since we last had a public meeting, four years ago, in August 2003." Is this the "project transparency" and "due diligence" we were promised?

An environmental impact statement is what is commonly used to evaluate the impacts - good or bad - of a proposed project like this one. An EIS would cover everything from economic benefits to social and environmental impacts. South Heart area residents submitted a petition to Stark County officials asking them to require Great Northern to complete an EIS. Great Northern publicly stated they will not do an EIS because an EIS is not required. If, indeed, this plant is going to be as "environmentally sound" as they say, why wouldn't GNPD welcome the opportunity to prove it? In the spirit of project transparency, what are they trying to hide?

County officials and South Heart area residents cannot be expected to make a sound decision as to whether or not the gasification plant and mine are going to be good for the community if they don't have all the information.

Voss stated they will be "providing the public credible information," but he left the audience with many unanswered questions. This meeting provided an outline of the proposed project. No real details could be given, because they haven't been figured out yet. When a question was asked about visibility from the national park, technical consultant Al Lukes assured us that there would be no visibility. Then, a couple of minutes later, when asked about the plant's stack height, his response was, "Wish I knew," and he went on to say they haven't finalized any of the plans yet. But they can assure us that it's not going to affect the park? This seems a little premature.

Everyone wants economic development, but we want it to be good for the community. We want real, sustainable economic development that will allow us to keep our water and maintain the integrity of our land. This proposed plant is on some of the best agricultural land in the area and neighbors even better land.

Granted, I may be a little biased, given that one of those three-generation farms neighboring this project is where I grew up. My great-grandparents settled there with a vision for the future. My grandparents and parents have taken their turn at enhancing and expanding on that vision. I too, have a picture in my head of what my children will have handed down to them someday, and nowhere in that picture are there giant pits in the surrounding fields and dry water wells.

I stayed after the meeting, since my questions were not among the chosen few to be answered. I asked what the expansion plan is, for after the 15th year of mining, who will be standing here next to fight for their land? The answer from Voss was, "I don't know. We don't know yet."

You are going to build a $1.4 billion plant and you haven't thought about where you are getting coal after 15 years? I don't believe that. Why not be forthcoming and tell your new "neighbors" whose farm or land you will be after next?

There are better, cheaper and cleaner ways we can fulfill energy demands and have economic development, ways that we would be proud to leave to future generations.

Fourth-generation farmer Myron Eberts said it best: "My grandfather left this land for us to take care of it, and that's exactly what I am going to do. I am not going to have my grandkids stand here and fight this someday and wonder why their granddad didn't put his foot down and stop this thing from moving in when he had the chance."

News > Opinion

Printer friendly version Answers few on gas plant plan

Comments

jim wrote on Feb 1, 2008 10:10 PM:

" as a former employee of a surface coal mining company in ND, i can tell you the PSC will not issue a mining permit until ALL laws and regulations (including the mineral ownership) are properly addressed in the permit application. "

denn wrote on Jan 31, 2008 7:31 PM:

" I forgot . . . property law is almost exclusively in the province of the states and SMRCA may have some environmental provisions that apply to the states but, I would almost guarantee that it has no provisions dealing with the relative rights between private mineral owners and surface owners. I say "almost" because It's been years since I've looked at that law and I don't have time to fool with it now. What you have posted of that law deals with "federal coal deposits." I'm not aware of any federal or state law anywhere in the country that is contrary to the centuries old doctrine that the mineral estate is the dominant estate. The severed surface estate carries an implied easement to allow for reasonable development of the mineral estate, which has been modified in modern times by the payment of damages to the SO. "

denn wrote on Jan 31, 2008 7:17 PM:

" I'm sure there have been a few such cases in district court in coal country, but they may not have been appealed to the supreme court. I don't have time to look right now, but I'll take your word for it that none come up in search. Like the situation in oil development, I'm sure the companies want to keep some goodwill and would much rather settle than "force" things in court, so the cases are likely to be pretty rare. FYI, in oil development, the SO has to go to court if they don't like the settlement offer and here it is the coal company who has that burden. Also FYI, the calculation for damages for oil development is the same as here, lost land value, production etc. "

TO Denn wrote on Jan 30, 2008 10:38 PM:

" Ok...so I did not read far enough into the statute. We were told at a recent public meeting by Dennis Meschke, landman for Contex Energy, the landman for Great Northern Power that they needed the permission and the agreement before they can mine.

Actually, the federal statute is the law of the land. Does not have anything to do with federal minerals It is from the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977. State laws can be more stringent but not less.

I was doing some searches on the ND Supreme Court website for cases where the coal company went to court and did not find anything, yet.

I am going to call the reclamation division of the Public Service Commission tomorrow for further information on this.

Like I said, we were told by the landman that they needed permission.

I am not going to revise my statement. I believe that the portions about damage compensation, lost production and loss of land value would keep a mining company from going to court. But, until I speak to the PSC I am going to stand firm on on the permission issue.

Do you have info on case law that can be cited regarding a mining company not getting permission and a court case that ensued? Just curious if you do as I would be interested in reading it.

"

denn wrote on Jan 30, 2008 6:49 PM:

" I don't see what the federal statute has to do with anything as it pertains to federally owned minerals. I thought the RR, the state, and private parties owned the minerals. In any event, that statute likely contains the same provision as the ND law that CK doesn't want to talk about.

CK, why did you stop at that section and didn't post the part of the law that pertains to when the SO doesn't give consent? It's pretty clear so I don't feel the need to summarize it. (Are you now going to revise your statement that "With coal minerals it does not matter. Surface owners HAVE to give permission and sign a surface agreement before they can mine."??) That part states:

5. If the mineral owner or the mineral developer is unable to obtain the surface owner'sconsent, the mineral owner or mineral developer may bring an action in district court to establish the relative rights of the parties and the measure of damages to the surface owner. At any time after the filing of any such action and either before or after the final decision of the district court, upon a showing to the satisfaction of the court that the surface owner will be adequately compensated for lost production, lost land value, and loss of the value of improvements due to the mining activity, the court shall issue an order which will authorize the public service commission to issue a permit to surface mine land without the consent which would otherwise be required by this section. In the event the damages awarded by the court to the surface owner exceed the amount tendered or otherwise provided for, the court shall award to the
surface owner reasonable attorney's fees in addition to any other sums determined to be due to the surface owner. "

CK wrote on Jan 30, 2008 9:32 AM:

" Denn...I found it. Here is part of it. The rest can be found in 38-18 of the North Dakota Century Code. http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t38c18.pdf
38-18-06. Written notice and consent required before permit to surface mine land
may be issued.
1. Before the public service commission may issue a permit to surface mine land, the mineral developer shall give the surface owner written notice of the type of land disturbance or mining operation contemplated by the mineral developer. This notice must sufficiently disclose the plan of work and operations to enable the urface
owner to evaluate the extent of the land disturbance on the surface owner's use of
the property. The notice must be accompanied by an enlarged United States
geological survey topographic map showing the specific locations to be covered by
the mining operation. The notice and map must be submitted to the surface owner
at least thirty days before the application for a permit to surface mine is to be
submitted.
2. The public service commission may not issue a permit to surface mine land unless the permit application is accompanied by statements of consent, executed by each surface owner whose land is included within the permit area, to have surface mining conducted upon the surface owner's land. The requirement established by this section is in addition to the requirements of chapter 38-14.1. "

To Denn wrote on Jan 30, 2008 8:40 AM:

" Denn...that is not correct. Whereas with oil and gas development you do not need the permission and agreement from the surface owner, mining is different. Here is an section of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act...(SMRCA) and the link to that entire act.

The Secretary shall not enter into any lease of Federal coal deposits until the surface owner has given written consent to enter and commence surface mining operations and the Secretary has obtained evidence of such consent. Valid written consent given by any surface owner prior to the enactment of this Act shall be deemed sufficient for the purposes of complying with this section.

http://www.osmre.gov/smcra.htm#714

I know there is something in the state laws but I don't have time to look for it right now. Not sure if it is in the rules or the century code. I will look later and provide the link/links. "

denn wrote on Jan 29, 2008 10:23 PM:

" Yes, I know the minerals may not have been for sale with the surface. My point is why buy only the surface and then complain about the consequences of that decision later? Who forced anyone to buy such land?

And to CK, you better check your info as there is no requirement that the surface owner give consent in order for the land to be mined. If the SO doesn't, the lessee can go to court and determine the damages owed to the SO, but that doesn't stop the mining. It's the same concept as oil development. SO's cannot stop the development of the mineral estate, but are compensated for damages. "

To denn wrote on Jan 29, 2008 12:20 PM:

" When land comes up for sale that does not necessarily mean that the mineral rights are also for sale. They are separate and independent. Don't just assume that the "surface owners" didn't want to buy the mineral rights. They were probably not available "

NIMBY wrote on Jan 29, 2008 8:58 AM:

" to to nimby: That's it. When you can't reply with a logical answer just throw red hering and see who rises to the bait. Stay on subject, which is the original post. In my opinion, the letter does sound like sour grapes and after rereading it I stand by my original post. I know the people of South Heart and the surrounding area. They love their homes and their life style, and I can't blame them one bit. I love the area myself. They have every right to request answers to their concerns. But, the way I read the original letter and some of these other posts, it would appear that an attitude of anti-corporation and anti-change is the motive behind the the challenge. My point is that there is nothing wrong with corporations or profits. When we get to the point in our country that because a corportation is big or because a profit may be made by someone the development must be stopped, we are on a path to self distruction as a nation. The railroad was "given" the mineral rights and land to encourage them to come west. Someone put their money up and made it happen. Yes that's ancient history to some now, but it did happen. Right or wrong they still have the right to sell and develop the resources they own. "

CK wrote on Jan 29, 2008 1:05 AM:

" With coal minerals it does not matter. Surface owners HAVE to give permission and sign a surface agreement before they can mine. Some of the surface owners have signed. Some are opposed. They cannot go ahead without the surface owners permission. There are surface/mineral owners who are having second thoughts with this situation. The situation with the mineral owners goes back to the depression. Remember 100 acres and a mule? Those lands came with minerals. During the depression landowners were in jeopardy of losing their farms and many did. Landman cheated many mineral owners out of their minerals. Other minerals were owned by the railroad, they were given every other section during the building of the railways. Burlington Northern had those minerals for many many years then Great Northern bought them out. Telling lies to the locals is not the way to get this thing built. Farmers and ranchers settled this land and they want to keep it, water and all. "

Energy Demands wrote on Jan 28, 2008 10:21 PM:

" I'd be interested in hearing what the "better, cheaper and cleaner ways to fulfill energy demands" are. "

mineral rights wrote on Jan 28, 2008 8:44 PM:

" The railroad owned every other section of mineral rights. Many of the other sections went to the state during the great depression- IN FACT, GNPD purchased many of the mineral rights in this area- which is why they want to develop here. It has NOTHING to do with "decreasing our dependance on foreign oil"- its about a greedy corporation looking to profit in the biggest way, with the littlest effort. The land owners who signed on were promised different things than what are happening now. The neighboring farmers and ranchers and even folks in the town of South Heart, are concerned for their way of life- water is precious, if its damaged, used up, or contaminated, then what? You cant wait to water cattle for a week or however long it would take GNPD to come up with a solution. THATS the problem here. WE want to know what the solution is, before the damage occurs- is that so unreasonable? WE want to know - and until we do, this project should not go forward. Its not about neighbors being jealous they are not going to profit- its concerns over health, water and air- with out this, what do we have? "

To NIMBY: wrote on Jan 28, 2008 8:13 PM:

" The issues with this project are because the media is being told one thing, then when the neighbors whose wells will be affected ask for written assurances that they will be replaced, they get nothing. But Voss will turn around and brag to the press that he is answering all questions and getting nothing but support. but its nice to see that you have all the answers. Maybe you can help Bush locate those weapons of mass destruction that we all blindly trusted him existed. You sheep go ahead and follow blindly- I prefer to ask questions and get answers- answers we all can live with.
"

Questions wrote on Jan 28, 2008 7:11 PM:

" Questions - who owns the mineral rights for this mine and what are those rights? Do the local people own the mineral rights or just the company or is it a mix in that mining area? And if you develop a farm or ranch or live on land where someone else owns the mineral rights, is there a risk knowing that something could happen someday? Are the mineral rights in this area high (and profitable to sell) because of potential coal development and oil in the area? I haven't seen this in the discussions and more insight would be helpful. "

denn wrote on Jan 28, 2008 6:24 PM:

" Are any mineral owners in the mine area opposed to this, or is just the surface owners who bought land without the minerals? For those talking about fighting the mine because they think its their duty is to protect the land, if these people are mineral owners and thus signed a lease to have their coal mined, I don't think they have much of a say after signing a such a lease now do they. If these same people don't have the minerals, whose fault is it that they bought land without the minerals . . . apparently someone else's fault by the sound of things. I want to hear if any minerals owners are complaining about this plant. "

NIMBY wrote on Jan 28, 2008 3:39 PM:

" Oh yes, let's not let those Money Hungry Rich Corporate Dogs, get another bone from our communities. We'll teach 'em not to mess around with North Dakota. Let's tax 'em to death and then we’ll make ‘em do an environmental impact statement when we bury ‘em. I have a dream too. It’s a dream about economic development on my terms. No corporations, no dirty hog farms, no feed lots, no mining, no nuclear plants, no chemical plants or fertilizer on the land to pollute our precious water. No carbon emissions to pollute our skies. No hydroelectric dams to bock the natural flow of our rivers. No electrical wires running across our prairies. No profit hoarding businesses, big or small, that steal the paychecks out of the hands of hard working people. I have a dream, that someday Big Brother government will hand me and mine a check every month and supply us with free health care, free non polluting transportation, free housing, free food and clothing, free education for all, and a 60 inch HDTV that hangs on my living room wall. Oh, no taxes. Seriously, Mary, it really bothers me to see letters like yours. I love Western ND as much as you do, I bet. Problem is, you are living about 100 years in the past, when cattle was king and a man could ride for days without seeing another soul. Today, we are an interdependent nation and each must contribute what they can for the betterment of all. You can’t keep taking without giving back. The people of South Heart and the surrounding area are to be commended for trying to work together in a civil manner to resolve differences in this matter. Your letter sounds like one who is upset because they weren’t asked to sit in on all the corporate meetings that went into planning the project. Why do we feel we are entitled to all the plans of every corporation?, "

Deb wrote on Jan 28, 2008 1:12 PM:

" Not a good idea... for so many reasons. Well written letter. That is my favorite area of North Dakota. Unfortunate that it is so fossil fuel rich as well. It's our responsibility to protect this area from the money-hungry "

pj wrote on Jan 28, 2008 9:32 AM:

" We had also better be aware of any "ash" spread on the roads as a way of getting rid of it......do some research online and see what other communities have had to deal with......we already have a high cancer rate here around Dickinson. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.